Pennington v. Integrity Communications, LLC

The world of employment law is ever changing and keeping up with precedent setting cases can be challenging which is precisely why Tayeb Hyderally chose this area of practice. There are many different facets that must be addressed such as wages, family medical leave, discrimination and dealing with disabilities in the workplace. Ty Hyderally shares his expertise with many different audiences. He works diligently to inform employees and employers of the latest employment law cases so that they can work to maintain a safe environment for everyone at the workplace. Hyderally speaks to various organizations as well as corporate level personnel to help develop policies and procedures which provide protection for employees. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was written to ensure that employees were being paid for the work they perform. There are many FLSA cases filed in the US every year. In this case the employer was not held liable because the employees omitted important information.

Pennington v. Integrity Communications, LLC

Bryan Pennington filed for a class certification under the FLSA. There were several separate complaints involved in the suit against Integrity Communications claiming that the company was in violation of the FLSA. Pennington and the other employees involved worked for Integrity installing cable and cable boxes. They were all classified as “independent contractors.” They claimed that their classification should have been “employees” and they were owed back pay, overtime and travel. Instead of being paid for hourly work, they were paid by the job which was called, “piece work.” The plaintiffs were required to attend training sessions without receiving any compensation; they were also told when to report to a scheduled job and when they should be done. They were also required to wear shirts which had the company’s logo. They stated that this should identify them as “employees” rather than independent contractors. Their claim was that the company was saving quite a substantial amount of money by not having to provide benefits such as health or dental insurance because of their worker classification. In his affidavit, Pennington stated that the workers frequently worked more than 50 hours a week and most worked at least 70 hours each week but were only paid for 40. They were also scheduled to work weekends and evenings without being compensated. Pennington also stated that he was terminated directly after presenting his complaints regarding the alleged illegal practices concerning wage and hour practices.

Awaiting a Final Decision on FLSA

The court did not grant the motion for conditional certification because the plaintiffs omitted the fact that other installers were not paid overtime for working more than 40 hours a week. They failed to prove that others were being compensated for overtime hours and they were not. Therefore, the court denied their motion to certify a class. For a case to not be dismissed the claim has to be completely factual and prove to the court that there is a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct that was alleged. The plaintiffs can still revise their affidavit and then re-file the motion at a later time.

FLSA and the Company

The FLSA claims that were made in this case failed partly because Integrity Communications asserted that the plaintiffs did not have the classification of “employees” under the FLSA. The defendants can cite another case Dole v. Amerilink Corp. In the Dole case, cable installers were not considered to be “employees” under the FLSA. Whether or not this will stand up in later proceedings that are likely to follow is yet to be seen. The cable installers in the Dole case had entirely different working conditions therefore Integrity may not be able to use it as a standard when it comes back before the judge.